Mockingbird edits

src/Advanced/Mock a Mockingbird/parts/03 bonus.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+\section{Bonus Problems}
+
+\definition{}
+The identity bird has sometimes been maligned, owing to
+the fact that whatever bird x you call to $I$, all $I$ does is to echo
+$x$ back to you.
+
+\vspace{2mm}
+
+Superficially, the bird $I$ appears to have no intelligence or imagination; all it can do is repeat what it hears.
+For this reason, in the past, thoughtless students of ornithology
+referred to it as the idiot bird. However, a more profound or-
+nithologist once studied the situation in great depth and dis-
+covered that the identity bird is in fact highly intelligent! The
+real reason for its apparently unimaginative behavior is that it
+has an unusually large heart and hence is fond of every bird!
+When you call $x$ to $I$, the reason it responds by calling back $x$
+is not that it can't think of anything else; it's just that it wants
+you to know that it is fond of $x$!
+
+\vspace{2mm}
+
+Since an identity bird is fond of every bird, then it is also
+fond of itself, so every identity bird is egocentric. However,
+its egocentricity doesn't mean that it is any more fond of itself
+than of any other bird!.
+
+
+\problem{}
+The laws of the forest no longer apply.
+
+Suppose we are told that the forest contains an identity bird
+$I$ and that $I$ is agreeable. \
+Does it follow that every bird must be fond of at least one bird?
+
+\vfill
+
+
+\problem{}
+Suppose we are told that there is an identity bird $I$ and that
+every bird is fond of at least one bird. \
+Does it necessarily follow that $I$ is agreeable?
+
+\vfill
+\pagebreak
+
+
+\problem{}
+Suppose we are told that there is an identity bird $I$, but we are
+not told whether $I$ is agreeable or not.
+
+However, we are told that every pair of birds is compatible. \
+Which of the following conclusiens can be validly drawn?
+
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Every bird is fond of at least one bird
+	\item $I$ is agreeable.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\vfill
+
+\problem{}
+The identity bird $I$, though egocentric, is in general not hope-
+lessly egocentric. Indeed, if there were a hopelessly egocentric
+identity bird, the situation would be quite sad. Why?
+
+\vfill
+
+\definition{}
+A bird $L$ is called a lark if the following
+holds for any birds $x$ and $y$:
+
+\[
+	(Lx)y = x(yy)
+\]
+
+\problem{}
+Prove that if the forest contains a lark $L$ and an identity bird
+$I$, then it must also contain a mockingbird $M$.
+
+\vfill
+\pagebreak
+
+
+\problem{}
+Why is a hopelessly egocentric lark unusually attractive?
+
+\vfill
+
+
+\problem{}
+Assuming that no bird can be both a lark and a kestrel---as
+any ornithologist knows!---prove that it is impossible for a
+lark to be fond of a kestrel.
+
+\vfill
+
+\problem{}
+It might happen, however, that a kestrel is fond of a lark. \par
+Show that in this case, \textit{every} bird is fond of the lark.
+
+\vfill